Q&A

Hello, <SC3c>: "Each visible yellow half of a Placed and Owned Pin counts as a Scored yellow Pin, earning points for the Alliance that Owns the Pin." <SC8>: An Alliance earns the Autonomous Win Point if it has "7 Pins scored for your Alliance."

Our question is about the meaning of "Pins scored for your Alliance" in <SC8>.

Since <SC3c> explicitly states that an owned yellow Pin is scored for the Alliance that owns it, does it count toward the seven Pins required for the Autonomous Win Point?

For example:

Blue Alliance has 5 blue Pins and 2 yellow Pins that are owned by Blue because the corresponding Toggle is set to Blue. Does this count as 7 Pins scored for Blue, satisfying the <SC8> requirement?

Could the GDC clarify whether "7 Pins scored for your Alliance" in <SC8> includes owned yellow Pins, or if it refers only to Alliance-colored (blue/red) Pins?

In rule <SC8>, the first two criteria for the Autonomous Win Point are listed as (emphasis mine):

1. At least seven (7) Pins Placed for your Alliance (does not include Pins scored in Quadrants on the opposing side of the Autonomous Line)
2. At least three (3) Goals each contain at least two (2) Pins scored for your Alliance (does not include Goals in Quadrants on the opposing side of the Autonomous Line)

<SC3>states:

Each Placed Pin can have one or two Scored halves.

If a Pin (not in a Quadrant on the opposing side of the Autonomous Line) meets the definition of Placed but not the definition of Scored, does it count as "Placed for your Alliance" when regarding criteria 1 of the Autonomous Win Point?

We were at a competition last weekend and the judge said the 2 scenarios negated the stacks and counted as 2 points for touching the robot. My kids were devastated and would like clarity. SC8-b makes it sound like both stacks should have been full points (14) because they are NOT fully nested.

Scenario 1: Robot is holding beam and is hovering over 2 stacks. The beam is touching the stacks, but they are not fully nested.

Scenario 2: Robot is holding a beam on the floor, and the beam is touching both stacks.

<SC8>

At the end of a match if a robot happens to still be touching the top pin of a 3 stack, that negates the entire stack value since the 3 pins are nested together. If that stack value doesn't count because it is fully nested, does touching only the top pin of the 3 stack qualify for touching 2 game elements for the 2 points since the pins are nested? <SC8>

<SC8>

<SC8> A Robot will receive 2 points for ending the Match in contact with Scoring Objects in the following scenarios:

Can you please clarify the meaning of "direct" contact, for instance if a robot has an intake system that holds multiple scoring objects at a time, and said robot contains at least two scoring objects within its structure will this count toward the two points, or do scoring objects need to be located outside the robot structure and located in the field in order to be counted for this scoring item.

In <SC8>, a robot contact with two Scoring Object can get 2 points. If a robot contact with a blue Scoring Object on the Field, and a red Starting Pin which still on the Starting Pin Support, like the picture below, could this robot get this 2 points?

In <SC8>, the robot contacted more than two scoring object or one stack can get two points. If a scoring object or stack be contacted by two robots both, like these pictures below, could two robots get this 2 points both? Or ONLY ONE robot can gets it?

Picture 1: the left Robot contact with a blue Pin, the right Robot contact with a red Pin, and they contact with a yellow Pin both

Picture 2: a robot contact with the yellow Pin in two Pin Stack, another robot contact with the blue Pin in the same two Pin Stack

<SC8> The high stake counts to AWP?

Hello GDC, I have a question on behalf of a referee regarding a situation that occurred at a recent local qualifying event.

Part 1: Primary Question and Rule Exception During the Autonomous period of a qualifying match, Blue1 crosses the autonomous line in a straight line and pushes Red1 into the Red Alliance Starting Zone. Prior to this action, Red1 had fully left the starting line and was not crossing the plane of the Starting Line.

<SG7>

<SG7> Don’t cross the Autonomous Line. During the Autonomous Period, Robots may not contact foam tiles, Scoring Objects, or Field Elements which are on the opposing Alliance’s side of the Autonomous Line. Note: Scoring Objects, Wall Stakes, and portions of the Ladder that contact or are positioned above the Autonomous Line are not considered to be on either side, and may be utilized by either Alliance during the Autonomous Period. Violation Notes: • All Violations of this rule (Major or Minor) will result in the Autonomous Bonus being awarded to the opposing Alliance. See <SG8b> for a potential exception caused by Autonomous Line interactions. • Intentional, strategic, or egregious Violations, such as intentional contact with an opposing Robot while contacting the foam tiles on the opposing side of the Autonomous Line, will be considered Major Violations.

Per rule SG7, Blue1 was given a Violation and Red alliance was awarded the Autonomous Bonus.

Rule SC8 states: <SC8>

<SC8> An Autonomous Win Point is awarded to any Alliance that ends the Autonomous Period with the following tasks completed, and that has not broken any rules during the Autonomous Period:

1. At least three (3) Scored Rings of the Alliance’s color
2. A minimum of two (2) Stakes on the Alliance’s side of the Autonomous Line with at least (1) Ring of the Alliance’s color Scored
3. Neither Robot contacting / breaking the plane of the Starting Line
4. At least one (1) Robot contacting the Ladder

SC8 states that Autonomous Win Point is awarded at the end of the Autonomous Period. Therefore, in the scenario described, the Red alliance was not awarded AWP due to no longer meeting criteria point 3 "Neither Robot contacting/breaking the plane of the Starting Line."

Question 1: For future similar situations, should the referee allow an exception and award AWP to an alliance that was forced into no longer meeting criteria point 3 by their opponent (given that they complete all other required AWP criteria)?

Part 2: Situation Context and Rule Application The match the above situation occurred in was one of the last qualifying matches in the day and the last one for these teams. Blue1 prior to this match had a functional and task completing autonomous program and never crossed the Autonomous Line. Given that AWP also factors into points for qualification rankings, the refereed viewed this violation of SG7 as strategic and egregious. Per the violation note for SG7 that states: "Intentional, strategic, or egregious Violations, such as intentional contact with an opposing Robot while contacting the foam tiles on the opposing side of the Autonomous Line, will be considered Major Violations," the referee gave Blue1 a Major Violation and Disqualification at the end of the completed match.

Question 2: Would this be an correct interpretation of the violation notes for SG7?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

(https://events.vex.com/storage/game_manual/VEX_V5_Robotics_Competition_2024-2025_High_Stakes/rules/SC8.html) The criteria for autonomous win point has been defined differently at separate tournaments. We are looking simply for clarification if the alliance colored wall stake is a required criteria. Some have interpreted SC8 2. "with at least 1 ring of the alliances color scored as meaning 1 ring must be scored on the alliance colored stake."

<SC8> At a local tournament our team did not receive AWP as the head referee interpreted sc8 2 criteria as requiring that one of the scored rings be on the alliance colored stake. The red1 scored 2 rings on a mobile goal and red2 scored 1 ring on another mobile goal and red 1 touched ladder. Please clarify that any 2 stakes on our alliance side meets criteria 2.

In a recent match, we had a robot complete all criteria for being awarded an AWP besides touching the base due to a ziptie managing to, very majestically, go in the hole that is used for securing the Ladder to the base. As referees we shown a flashlight and could not see any physical touch inside the base, but there was no way for us to tell.

Should we give benefit of the doubt in this situation that it might be touching something internally? I acknowledge this may never happen again, but it was extraordinary to have happen to begin with. I have attached an image from said match below.

Reference image courtesy of 63975D

<SC8>

Q&A 2248 states that non-functional elements, such as a license plate that is not backed by a functional structure, will not be considered in the context of SC8(4).

Q&A 2364 states that zip ties are functional elements that can be used to meet the criteria of SC8(4).

QUESTION: Is the head referee required to determine if a zip tie is, in fact, serving a function other than extending the robot's reach? (It seems counterintuitive that a required robot part like a license plate would not count as "contact" when an optional item like a zip tie would, especially if neither is serving any other function on the robot.)

QUESTION: Are the same criteria (functional/nonfunctional) used to determine if a part of the robot is "breaking the plane of the starting line" in the context of SC8(3) (and other rules regarding robot orientation vis-a-vis field boundaries)?

In rule <SC8> regarding the scoring of Autonomous Win Points, one of the criteria is given as "has not broken any rules during the Autonomous Period". In <SG4>, the title of "Keep Scoring Objects in the field" suggests that the removal of any ring from the field results in the loss of the AWP by SC8, but the text of the rule never mentions rings of the offending robot's own alliance, which suggests that the removal of a ring of the same alliance should not result in the loss of the AWP. We have had it ruled both ways at different competitions so far.

If a robot on the red alliance removes a red ring from the field, does that result in an automatic loss of AWP by SC8 and SG4?

If a team has zip ties sticking off of their robot and they use those zip ties to touch the ladder to meet requirement SC8-4 for AWP does that count as a team touching the ladder?

<SC8>

SG1-b states that to start a match a robot can be touching 1 preload and SG1-c states that they can not be touching any other robots. My question is can both robots be touching the same preload?

Scenario that I have seen is where robot 1 had no autonomous and robot 2 could complete all steps to get AWP by themselves minus robot 1 breaking the plane of the starting line. So they lined both robots up with both touching one preload. Robot 2 started the autonomous by more less pushing robot 1 off the line by pushing the preload that both robots were touching and then robot 2 went and completed the other 3 steps to get AWP. Is this allowed or a rule violation?<SG1><SG5>

<SC8>

<SC8> An Autonomous Win Point is awarded to any Alliance that ends the Autonomous Period with the following tasks completed, and that has not broken any rules during the Autonomous Period:

1. At least three (3) Scored Rings of the Alliance’s color
2. A minimum of two (2) Stakes on the Alliance’s side of the Autonomous Line with at least (1) Ring of the Alliance’s color Scored
3. Neither Robot contacting / breaking the plane of the Starting Line
4. At least one (1) Robot contacting the Ladder

If BLUE1 scores one blue ring on a stake on the blue side of the Autonomous Line, BLUE2 scores one blue ring on a different stake on the blue side of the Autonomous Line, and RED1 also scores one blue ring on a different stake on the red side of the Autonomous Line. Neither blue robot is breaking the plane of the Starting Line and BLUE1 is touching the ladder.

It seems clear that this is an AWP for blue as tasks 1-4 were completed, correct? Or is it the intention that for the blue alliance to earn an AWP, the blue alliance needs to complete all of the tasks and since the blue alliance only scored two rings, it would not be an AWP?

<SC8><T19>

Please define "the Alliance's side of the Autonomous Line" for use in rules SC8.2 and T19.b.

As one of the conditions for an Autonomous Win Point to be awarded, SC8.2 requires

2. A minimum of two (2) Stakes on the Alliance’s side of the Autonomous Line with at least (1) Ring of the Alliance’s color Scored

T19.b requires a similar criteria to determine "Mobile Goals on their side of the Autonomous Line" in a 3-3 tied Elim match.

b. Any Elimination Match that ends in a tied score with no Scored Rings and no Robots that have Climbed to a Level may be decided by the quantity of Mobile Goals that are fully on each side of the Autonomous Line. The Alliance with a higher quantity of Mobile Goals completely on their side of the Autonomous Line, and not in contact with the Autonomous Line, at the end of the Match should be awarded the value of one (1) Scored Top Ring for that Match. If the Alliances have an equal number of Mobile Goals on their side of the Autonomous Line, a tiebreaker Match should be played.

For SC8 and T19, should the definition of Autonomous Line include both pair of lines making the boundary of their autonomous zone the edge of the tape line closest to them?

Autonomous Line – The pair of white tape lines that run across the field, and the space between those lines. See <SG7> for more information.

Or should an "Alliance's side of the Autonomous Line" be determined in the same way it is for SG7 violations where teams have up to the furthest edge of the tape line away from them?

Or should the guidance be the note from SG7 that says objects positioned over the Autonomous Line are "not considered to be on either side."

Or can scoring a ring on a stake that ends partially in both autonomous zones, for example a mobile goal that has fallen over, count toward AWP since the Stake would still technically be on their side of the Autonomous Line? In which case, if there is both a red and blue ring on the stake, can we count it for both? (Say yes.....pleeeease????)

I know you can't tell it in the picture, but the mobile goal is mostly over the red auton zone with the stake fully in the red auton zone. Does this mobile goal meet the criteria for AWP since the requirement is for the STAKE (PVC pipe and barb only) to be on the red side and not the entire MOBILE GOAL (includes hexagonal base)?

Look forward to the clarification of Autonomous Line for both SC8 (specifies STAKE) and T19 (specifies MOBILE GOAL) purposes. Thanks!

<SC8> For scoring the autonomous win point, if a robot possesses a ring and at the end of the autonomous and the ring is in contact with the ladder but no other piece of the robot is in contact with the ladder is that considered contact to meet the last requirement for getting an autonomous win point (SC8)

<SC8>SC8-2 states a minimum of two (2) Stakes on the Alliance’s side of the Autonomous Line with at least (1) Ring of the Alliance’s color Scored. Does that mean that both stakes must have a ring scored on them or could a team score all 3 rings on one stake and then have another empty stake on their alliance's side of the field?

Example scenario:

Team 1 grabs stake and scores 3 red rings on that 1 stake. Team 2 drives and contacts ladder. No one touched 2nd stake that is already placed on Alliance's side of the field. Would they receive AWP since they have 3 rings scored, 2 stakes on their side of the field with 1 alliance ring scored and are in contact with the ladder?